Comments about ‘In our opinion: The debate over the legality of requiring same-sex marriage has only just begun’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 13 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Had the right to an interracial marriage been left to voters, it would still be illegal in many southern states.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

So the DN is counting on SCOTUS saying, "Sure, you're denying a group their equal rights with no rational basis, but it really isn't our place to interfere. You all do what you want. We'll be over here clipping out the portions of the U.S. Constitution that are a bit problematic for you."

I agree that it would be best for each state to decide on its own to rescind these laws. It certainly would be better for business. And perhaps it will be business concerns that give politicians the cover they need to do the right thing. Like Governor Brewer in AZ: She was able to veto the ill-advised "religious freedom" law by saying "I will always do what's best for my state."

I think it will be this way for religions too. If they want to continue to attract converts, at least here in the U.S. - or stop losing them - they're going to have to do what's best for their "business."

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

I didn't even read the article but I'm guessing it's the same nonsense as we have read hundreds of times in past Dnews articles.

People should decide, not judges. States rights. Bla bla. Children are raised better if the parents are biological. Bla bla. Maybe some completely bogus discredited study will be cited. Blast Obama or Harry Reid.

And that's a wrap!

Kearns, UT

I think it's time I stop reading the Deseret News. It's not healthy to be constantly reminded about how opposed the editorial board is to me having basic rights that would lead to real happiness in this life. While there are so many people sincerely trying to reach out and understand what it means to be homosexual in this community, you continue to publish articles that undermine those attempts. Don't you realize that your words continue to compel people to keep us as strangers in our own churches, neighborhoods, and homes.

I am saddened by this fight you continue to wage against a group of people who have been marginalized for far too long. Can't you please remember that these are people--children of God--who deserve a break from the rhetoric that divides us?

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be a federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a practice that remains deeply divisive within our nation?...".

Why stop there?

The DN editorial is dismissive about a federal district court judge.

Yet the DN editorial gives deference to another unelected lawyer's single vote.

In both cases, the problem is unelected lawyers making decisions that affect all of us.

It appears that the age old axiom of where one stands on an issue depends upon whose ox is being gored continues to be the golden rule.

west Jordan, UT

I am going to have to disagree with the statement in the article.

"It is almost certain that one of the pending appellate court decisions regarding the right of a state to define marriage will again return to the Supreme Court. And four of the current nine justices are almost certain to uphold laws."

Not necessarily. That will only happen if there is a disagreement among the different federal and appellate Judges. Last I counted the score was 42 decisions supporting Marriage equality to 0 that were ruled in favor of discrimination... oh I'm sorry "traditional marriage". If there is no disagreement then the Supreme Court will not take up the matter. They will just deffer to the lower courts rulings and Marriage Equality then becomes law. I hope that there is a decisive ruling by the Supreme court that will be sweeping across all states. But eventually, one by one all of these unconstitutionally voter approved laws will fall.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide."


Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Can democracy abrogate civil rights? Is marriage such a basic civil right? Public sentiment is mercurial.

La Verkin, UT

Wow, is everyone afraid to stand up for traditional marriage? I have always believed that we have created through legal contracts and needed to create a way for LGBT people to have equal rights when it comes to survivorship, hospital visits, tax policies, etc. That is what equal rights are about. I believe that people of all races and religions should have equal rights too. That doesn't mean that we must call all the people of all religions Catholics or all people of all colors Asians. If people in gay relationships want to call themselves married, I don't care. If they want the government to compel ME to call them married, that is an over-reach of government and it is a change of historic definition that I believe is wrong AND incorrect. I am sure I will now be labelled a bigot and a hater though I am not either. I have family members that are gay that I love and a number of gays that I work with and enjoy friendships with and a number that visit regularly in my home. I still have to stand for what I believe.

Eagle Mountain, UT

So what if a group of voters in a certain State, even a huge 80 to 20 margin decided "Freedom of Religion" really meant "any group of Christianity"?

Should that be legal? Or should a judge throw that out?

What if a State decided that to vote one must own property? What if a State decided that it would only educate those kids it deemed had a shot of succeeding in life? Does a State, or the People of a State really hold all power? Or are they subject to limitations.

The fact a specific right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not make it any less a Right (in fact that was one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights, that their enumeration would be construed as a limitation.)

If you are enjoying certain legal privileges because of a Status conferred upon you by a government, that same privilege and Status must be made available equally to all. After all, aren't all men created equal?

Bountiful, UT

A recent survey found the Roberts court has seen a serious decline in support for the Supreme Court by a sizable majority of citizens. Even though they're unelected and serve for life, this has to be on the mind of the Supremes as they try to sift through cases.

They don't operate in a vacuum.

The opinions of Thomas and Scalia - who recently badly misread even his own earlier opinion - can be easily predicted before any case is actually formulated, but the rest of the court has to be aware of how they'll be judged by history.

Overturning the striking record of lower courts on SSM decisions will yield respect by a dwindling group of Americans, while the younger generations would look at it as just another really bad decision by a court that seems intent on eroding the respect for the institution.

Values Voter

DN wrote: "The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes?"

So what have been the most recent decisions by an electorate on this issue? I would point out to the DN that decisions made in the last couple of years are more indicative of where the U.S. stands now, rather than votes taken a decade or more ago.

Here's another set of key questions: Why have the arguments made by those opposed to Marriage Equality been losing ground at such a rapid pace? -- both in courts and in the sphere of public opinion?

Springville, UT

I know you are against SSM, but you really don't get this Constitution thing, do you? Or is it just when it is convenient and in agreement with your views? This editorial is stunning in its hypocrisy.

The Wraith
Kaysville, UT

@Roland Kayser

Don't forget Utah, one only has to read the talks of religious leaders in Utah to be reminded that they too were very much against interracial marriage. And I'm not talking about the 1800's. I mean the talks given in the 50's and 60's.

In all I think this entire editorial is pointless. What should guide the decision is not who will decide but what will decide. Whether it's by the electorate or the supreme court the constitution should decide this issue. In my opinion that means same sex marriage will be legal in America soon; and this will actually prove very positive for our country.

Values Voter


My husband and I are legally and lawfully married in the eyes of the state of California and in the eyes of the U.S. government. That is what I care about, legal equality -- that my government not discriminate against me. Contrary to what you might think, though, I have no objection if your conscience does not allow you to recognize my relationship. That is your business.

About your first point, I've yet to discover a way to privately contract for the spousal privilege.

Pleasant Grove, UT

It would appear that the editorial writer fails to grasp that under our Federal Constitution, the role of the judiciary includes reviewing the laws passed by the Congress and the various States to determine whether they are in conflict with the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Without that review and court decisions, segregation would still be the law of the land in states where it used to exist, miscegenation would be banned by law, police would be allowed to beat confessions out of suspects, and people could be jailed indefinitely without charges being filed. It's part of the idea of checks and balances to prevent, among other things, a tyranny of the majority that would easily oppress those in the minority. One would think that Mormons in particular would be sufficiently cognizant of their own history to see how badly that can turn out.

American Fork, UT

In other words, you're only willing to accept one outcome and you're willing to keep fighting and trample to constitution to get it.

Salt Lake City, UT

"The key question in the debate over the definition of marriage is about who shall decide. Will it be the people, through democratic processes? Or will it be a federal district court judge asserting a constitutional right to a practice that remains deeply divisive within our nation?" Alabama - early 1960's.

La Verkin, UT

@VV, My lawyer friends say that forming an LLC with specific provisions for those issues will provide every legal remedy you seek with the possible exception of some tax laws which I agree should be addressed. My Constitutional conviction is that marriage should not be a part of the equation when it comes to the Federal government - that marriage should be between two people or between two people and their God. The fact that the government IS involved is what has led us down this path.

Mapleton, UT

I fully support the rights of LGBT couples to legally join in unions of their choice. But to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all marriage arrangement, regardless of obvious differences, only leads to a legal and moral morass detrimental to all. Any party could and will take advantage of ill-suited legalities to constantly “harass” another.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments